If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The marked proliferation of mosques in the U.S. since 9/11 should raise a red flag for Americans. Recent controversies surrounding mega-mosque construction projects countrywide -- many in locations with almost no Muslims to speak of -- have grave implications for the future of these targeted communities and areas beyond.

Accelerated mosque-building -- in Murfreesboro, Tennessee; Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Ground Zero, New York; and Santa Clara and Temecula, California, to name a few -- carries significance beyond the mere construction of a collection of Muslim houses of worship. It represents yet another orchestrated effort to oust traditional American values and replace them with Islamic practices, laws, and beliefs.

Although most U.S. mosques heretofore have been built without resistance, the newly attendant controversies present speciously polarized views between, on the one hand, ostensibly welcoming, tolerant, multi-culti progressives who deny any possible radical agenda despite substantial evidence to the contrary in existing mosques and, on the other hand, so-called fearful, Islamophobic, ignorant bigots unwilling to embrace diversity. Mainstream media's predominant point of view is that any opposition to mosque-building represents a blatant unwillingness to integrate Muslims into American communities. This view disallows the possibility that such objections represent appropriate, reasoned responses to an attempt to destroy America from within and supplant its culture with a supremacist, totalitarian, and misogynistic ideology.

Islamic terrorism expert Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project for Terrorism, attributes the spate of mosque-building and land acquisition to the Muslim American Society (MAS), an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Emerson contends that the MAS has been actively buying up property and establishing mosques to control the appointment of imams who "distribute the message they believe is necessary to spread Islam around the world."

It should be noted that a mosque is totally unlike a church or a synagogue, entities that serve their communities under the law of the land and are both empowered and restrained under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Under the Establishment Clause of that amendment, the government is prohibited from establishing a state religion or conferring preferential treatment on one religion over another. Although the government may not interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, the proscription of religious practices is permissible, as in the examples of polygamy and human sacrifice.

In the U.S. and in other Western countries, Christians and Jews freely and critically choose their brand of theology from a multitude of ecclesiastic offerings and determine their individual levels of religious observance or none at all. The exercise of faith and the observance of faith-related practices occur across a broad spectrum of individual behaviors based solely on personal choice.

In Muslim countries, no separation exists between mosque and state. Islamic doctrine or sharia controls all aspects of a person's existence, from the correct way to use the toilet to permissible forms of lying, or taquiya. For Muslims, Mohammed is the perfect man, whose every example must be emulated, even though by Western Judeo-Christian standards he was a mass murderer, pedophile, rapist, torturer, and looter. Furthermore, Islamic doctrine is immutable, and any criticism of the traditions and practices of Mohammed is considered apostasy, which is punishable by death.

No free individual will exists or is allowed when it comes to practices and observances. Sharia must be strictly followed. A mosque is a symbol of this ultimate authority and serves the function of organizing every aspect of life in a Muslim community.

Mosques are modeled after the first mosque established by Mohammed in Medina, which was a seat of government, a command center, a court, a school, and a military training center and depot for arms. Mosque leaders today issue religious decrees, enforce Islamic doctrine, monitor conduct, provide training, punish transgressions, and command actions, including the requirement to conduct jihad.

In the "Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America," published in 1991 and discovered in a 2004 FBI raid of a house in Northern Virginia, the Muslim Brotherhood explains historical stages of Islamic activism for "civilizational jihad." This usurpation of American Judeo-Christian and Western liberal social, political, and religious values by Islam was defined in the document which gave the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in America as "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and G-d's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to describe the role of the mosque or Islamic center as being identical to the Medina mosque constructed by Mohammed, with its status as a military base and a provider of jihadist training. In essence, the mosque or Islamic center building operates in the service of establishing an authoritative physical presence for a strategic base of operations. Rather than the benign construction of a house of worship, the building of a mosque represents one in a series of beachheads in the interconnected network of bases to teach the skills of jihad, advance Islam, and impose sharia in due time.

The radical nature of U.S. mosques was confirmed in 2005 by a study conducted by Freedom House, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques," in which it was determined that 80% of American mosques encouraged Muslims to work for the establishment of the Islamic state and espoused hatred and intolerance toward non-Muslims.

Beyond the Freedom House study and further bolstering the contention that the mosque is an institution of concern for Americans is the incidence and prevalence of mosques that have harbored and trained terrorists as well as raised money for terrorist activities. One such example, the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in northern Virginia, is referred to as a "terror mill" and front for Hamas operatives. The fact that it has been investigated for its financing and aid of terrorists is not an unusual profile of activities for U.S. mosques. Established in 1982 with Saudi funding, the Dar al-Hijrah mosque is one of the largest and most influential mosques in the country. Its leaders have routinely given militant sermons condoning the use of violence and criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

Imams preaching at the mosque have included Mohammed al-Hanooti, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and Anwar Awlaki, a senior al-Qaeda operative who was linked to three 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hassan, and the Underwear Bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. The mosque has hosted Muslims, including Sam Al-Arian, who have been accused and convicted of supporting the terrorist group Hamas. Astonishingly, the Dar al-Hijrah mosque is still in operation, a privilege that would unlikely be extended to a church or synagogue under similar circumstances.

According to former FBI agent and expert on Islam John Guandolo, we have over 2,000 so-called Islamic centers across the U.S. modeled after the first mosque in Medina. These Islamic centers can be likened to military command centers that imbue jihad ideology and serve as processing centers for jihadist training, Guandolo says.

In view of the stated intent and the supporting ideology of mosque-proliferation, we would be well-advised to heed the words of former Muslim and professor of sharia law Sam Solomon, who declares, "We must never forget that Islam is an all-encompassing ideological system, and as such wherever there is a Muslim community there will be sharia, and wherever there is sharia, there is Islamization of the territory and ultimately the nation."

Rather than allowing the building of more mega-mosques in the United States, we should halt existing projects and seriously consider shutting down existing mosques to prevent the proliferation of an ideology that has publicly pledged to destroy America.

That's all well and good, if we just remove that pesky First Amendment.

The day that the government can tell a group of Muslims that they can't build a mosque on their property because their beliefs are anti-american is the day the government can do the same to a church or any other religious group for their beliefs.

Anyways, if there was to be a ban on any new mosques in metro Detroit, the Archdiocese wouldn't have anyone to buy all the church buildings that they will be looking to unload when they close the parishes later this year. They have lawsuit settlements to pay off, in addition to dealing with falling attendance and donation numbers.

And, yes, the Archdiocese of Detroit has previously sold their former church buildings to Muslim groups. There's a former Catholic Church in Hamtramck that is now a mosque. I think there's at least one in Dearborn, too, but I drive by the one in Hamtramck on an almost daily basis.

That's all well and good, if we just remove that pesky First Amendment.

The day that the government can tell a group of Muslims that they can't build a mosque on their property because their beliefs are anti-american is the day the government can do the same to a church or any other religious group for their beliefs.

Anyways, if there was to be a ban on any new mosques in metro Detroit, the Archdiocese wouldn't have anyone to buy all the church buildings that they will be looking to unload when they close the parishes later this year. They have lawsuit settlements to pay off, in addition to dealing with falling attendance and donation numbers.

And, yes, the Archdiocese of Detroit has previously sold their former church buildings to Muslim groups. There's a former Catholic Church in Hamtramck that is now a mosque. I think there's at least one in Dearborn, too, but I drive by the one in Hamtramck on an almost daily basis.

Having lived in an Islamic country for several years under sharia law, I agree with the OP to the extent that mosques are not churches exclusively.

The problem with Islam is it is not completely a religion, it's also a political ideology. That's where the conflict with the First Amendment comes at least philosophically, churches are protected so long as they don't involve themselves (directly) in politics and government. There are limits to the freedom of religion as it applies to churches, and Islam in its purest form violates the spirit if not the fact of that protection.

Mosques in the US are fine, so long as they confine themselves strictly to services and faith-based activities........any more, and they are dangerous due to Islam's long, unterrupted history of violent propagation over the centuries.

That's all well and good, if we just remove that pesky First Amendment.

Missed the point, there, didn't you? The First Amendment doesn't survive when one sect uses it as a bludgeon to attack all other religions. The abolition of the United States Constitution is not protected by the First Amendment. The training of violent jihadis is not protected by the First Amendment. The use of a house of worship as a base of operations for military conquest is not protected by the First Amendment.

Originally Posted by noonwitch

The day that the government can tell a group of Muslims that they can't build a mosque on their property because their beliefs are anti-american is the day the government can do the same to a church or any other religious group for their beliefs.

So, we have to accommodate an anti-American cult that seeks to establish outposts from which to engage in revolutionary violence against us because they have a religious motivation to accompany the political one?

Originally Posted by noonwitch

Anyways, if there was to be a ban on any new mosques in metro Detroit, the Archdiocese wouldn't have anyone to buy all the church buildings that they will be looking to unload when they close the parishes later this year. They have lawsuit settlements to pay off, in addition to dealing with falling attendance and donation numbers.

And, yes, the Archdiocese of Detroit has previously sold their former church buildings to Muslim groups. There's a former Catholic Church in Hamtramck that is now a mosque. I think there's at least one in Dearborn, too, but I drive by the one in Hamtramck on an almost daily basis.

Did you happen to notice that many of the new mega-mosques are being built in areas with negligible Muslim populations? Or that they are being funded by groups that are listed as terrorist agencies?

Nobody is saying that a Muslim cannot build a mosque, but the article is saying that certain Muslims, who are tied to terror groups that seek the violent overthrow of the United States government, should not be permitted to do so.

Let them build Mosques. I don't care. At least that way we'll know where all the wackos are. Everyone who is a wacko may not be in a Mosque, but all the wackos are in there somewhere. Having a Mosque will save us the trouble of an exhaustive search when we need information. Seems to me some of our most important tips have come from Mosques.

So, we have to accommodate an anti-American cult that seeks to establish outposts from which to engage in revolutionary violence against us because they have a religious motivation to accompany the political one?

We accomodate Westboro Baptist Church and the Rev. Fred Phelps.

I live in an area in which there are a lot of muslims of middle eastern descent. The community has been here since before I moved to this part of the state (in 1987), long before terrorism really began to affect the US. There are arab muslims pretty much everywhere I go, except church. Coworkers, bosses, court officials, lawyers, and so on. The ladies working the register at Macys. We've been peacefully coexisting for decades, except when idiots come to the arab festival with a pig's head on a stick trying to enflame the muslims into action.

So far the Democrat Reverend Phelps has not killed or plotted to kill anyone, he abuses the concept of freedom of speech in order to enrage people into causing him damage he can sue for.
This is not a logical comparison and you normally think logically.

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

I live in an area in which there are a lot of muslims of middle eastern descent. The community has been here since before I moved to this part of the state (in 1987), long before terrorism really began to affect the US. There are arab muslims pretty much everywhere I go, except church. Coworkers, bosses, court officials, lawyers, and so on. The ladies working the register at Macys. We've been peacefully coexisting for decades, except when idiots come to the arab festival with a pig's head on a stick trying to enflame the muslims into action.

So walking with a pig on a stick justifies violence? Next you'll Be saying that burning the quran justified the killings in egypt.
Notice how a crucifix is put in a jar with urine and called art, but a cartoon depicting MOOhammed is seen as bigoted...

So walking with a pig on a stick justifies violence? Next you'll Be saying that burning the quran justified the killings in egypt.
Notice how a crucifix is put in a jar with urine and called art, but a cartoon depicting MOOhammed is seen as bigoted...

Walking with a pig's head on a stick through a crowd of muslims is not justification for violence, but I consider it to be looking for trouble, and engaging in deliberately offensive behavior. Just like a white person yelling the n word while walking through downtown Detroit would be looking for trouble.

But the flip side of both those situations is this: Why would anyone want to go to the arab festival in Dearborn holding a pig's head on a stick? Why would anyone want to walk around Detroit yelling out the n word? Why would the idiot artist want to offend people by sticking a crucifix in a jar of urine? People do this type of thing because they are attention whores. Rev. Wood, of the pig's head group, is an attention junkie of the highest order. I have known this man personally in my lifetime, as he founded a church in Kentwood in the late 70s/early 80s.

And, to get to the Rev. Wood's stated purpose of witnessing about Jesus to the muslims of Dearborn-what is Christian about his chosen method? His message is "I'm a Christian so I get to be an asshole in public and your police have to protect me". That's a message Jesus can be proud of.

Speaking of Kentwood, there have been 2 mosques built on East Paris St in the last 2 yrs or so. There is no muslim community to speak of in that area so this article in the OP rings true. The most cars I've ever seen in the lot is maybe 10, and the stereotype of middle easterners being taxi drivers seems to be true to the extent as there's usually a taxi or 2 in the lot.

Good men sleep peaceably in their beds at night because
rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.